Non Paradigmatic Humans And Animals Case Study

1225 Words5 Pages

Exam Two
Phil 140
Winter 2016
Adanna Nwaro
1. The moral status of a creature is at the core of many issues in ethics. That is, in determining the moral status of the creature, we 're interested in what features a creature must have in order to be a morally relevant being (the kind of creature that has moral rights). Non-paradigmatic humans (i.e. infants, the cognitively disabled, etc.) and animals are importantly related in answering this question. Explain how non-paradigmatic humans and animals are related.
One characteristic of Human beings is that for one to be considered Human he must be able to achieve the kind of dignity and self-respect that human beings have, he must be able to choose his actions rather than be led by instinct. Hence, the values of appreciating art, literature, and the goods that come with deep personal relationships all require one to be rational, autonomous,…show more content…Just like Smith, Jones plans to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones witnesses the child slip, hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted and stands by, in anticipation to push the child 's head back under if need be, but it isn’t necessary. After a little thrashing about, the child drowns by himself. Jones watches and does nothing "coincidentally."
Smith killed the child, whereas Jones "only" let the child die. That is the difference between the cases. However, did either man behave better better than the other from a moral point of view? If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself morally important, we could say that Jones 's behavior was less disgusting than Smith 's. But we would all agree that they both had criminal intentions that led to the same outcome. Both men acted from the same motive, personal gain, and had exactly the same end in view when they acted or Did not act in the case of

will keep our creatures away from suffering. It is addressed to the Scientifics and the owners of animal laboratories because they are using animals for experiments and unnecessary research for the human benefits. The structure of this topic is comparing and contrasting animals to humans. People cannot validate harming or killing a human being for the assistances of others, in the same manner, people cannot justify hurting or destroying an animal life for the human needs. The creatures should have

reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a

underestimate animal intelligence, as such they considers a creature’s moral status to be equivalent to an inanimate object. Hence, unlike human, beast cannot weigh the consequences of its actions. Simply, beasts do not have the leisure to choose. Following such train of though, it is therefore unnecessary to improve the current moral status of an animal. (Mizzoni, p.118) Unfortunately, this interpretation of an animal’s moral status allows old experiment to disregard an animal wellbeing, in exchange

and products is unfairly abusive. Third, using psychological torment to gain power or control over living creatures will leave lasting damage. Animals should have rights because as long as they do not have any, physical mistreatment, ex-ploitation, and psychological mistreatment will continue.
As far back as Aristotle, philosophers have pondered whether or not people should have a moral responsibility to tend to animals properly. For centuries animal fights, involving bulls, boars, and other

animals for the sake of humans.
The Animal Rights movement began with Plutarch, a Greek historian, born 46-120 CE, who argued that animals deserve ethical rights because they possess a conscious and are rational creatures. He also maintained that non-human animals are the sorts of creatures that have intellectual traits, interests, and desires that deserve respect from mankind. Though Plutarch’s fascination of animals was well noted, his animal-related works remain relatively unknown. In the Moralia

is really no specific advantage of one species over another.
Animals should be considered to have right to life, and freedom from suffering. Their living environments and their territories should be respected. They should be considered as equal creatures on this earth with equal rights. In those fundamental ways they should be treated like humans. To do less is to consider human beings to be somehow above all of creation, as if our rights are more important. Animals are animals, and humans are humans

distress, even though they have moral status and rights.
A right is a particular way of protecting interests, to say that an interest is protected by a right, is to say that interest is protected against being ignored or violated simple because this will benefit someone else. So what are animal rights? Animal rights is the idea that animals have the same rights as humans, to live free of suffrage, just as important as living individuals, and with the same moral status as humans. According to Doris

to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. Even though animals are not intellectually or physically at the same level as us humans, they can still feel pain when hurt. (48)
Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, wrote his book Animal Liberation in 1975. This book practically started the animal rights movement. In his book, Singer says that animal liberation today is somewhat comparable to racial and gender justice back in the days when blacks

chapter 7 (281-308) re-entangles Job’s twin-telling his birth story in order to guide an engagement with Genesis that centers on the concept of person, while chapter 8 (309-332) develops an account of human flourishing as the faithful response of creatures to God as creator.
Persons and Bodies
Kelsey proposes a distinctive theological concept of what a person is for Christian anthropology. Critically, this proposal avoids the pitfalls of ordinary, non-theological discourse about what a human person

question what truly makes monsters of men. Beings who humans perceive to be monsters, when examined, reveal aspects of our nature as humans.
Caliban and Frankenstein’s Creature are both considered to be monsters due to their physically abhorring appearances. Caliban is said to be “A strange fish.” (Act 2, Scene 2), and the Creature is called a “…vile insect.” (pg. 102) by his creator, as well as a “Devil” on multiple occasions. These descriptions imply that these characters are less than human, which